Kate Clinton

We, The Corporation

Filed By Kate Clinton | February 13, 2010 5:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: Citizens United, john roberts, law, supreme court, white male

When the Supremes ruled 5-4 in Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission - AKA Capitalism v. Democracy - I got that old familiar cement block on sternum feeling of despair that I haven't had since Bush v. Gore, another vote from our resident terrorist cell #5.

According to the ruling, corporations can spend unlimited funds on political advertising in any political election. Or they can just threaten to. What candidate wants to piss off Citibank by saying, "If you're too big to fail, you're not too big to be regulated."

The Supremest, Chief Umpire John Roberts, who claimed in his confirmation hearing that his job is just to call balls and strikes, threw the entire game, along with judicial restraint and precedent. He must be on the take from someone. Oh right. Corporations.

In one of the biggest insults to personhood ever, the Roberts' Court ruled that corporations are the same as people and therefore have the right to free speech. The "and those people are mostly straight white males" was understood.

That my darling LGBT community thinks that by the strength of our incredible, obvious logic, we will be able to sway this willfully illogical, camera-shy Supreme Court to see the unconstitutionality of CA's Prop 8 is poignant.

May they prove me wrong.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

That my darling LGBT community thinks that by the strength of our incredible, obvious logic, we will be able to sway this willfully illogical, camera-shy Supreme Court to see the unconstitutionality of CA's Prop 8 is poignant.

Amen, sister. Amen.

Yes, this is a tragedy unfolding.... one almost thinks that maybe the primary lawyer bringing the h8 action wanted it to land in front of this court in order to set this standard for the future.

Put it this way. About two weeks ago, five insane cisnormative perverts deliberately destroyed the foundation of Constitutional government in the USA and rendered it so that it can never be restored. Why? Because it was in their economic interests and fueled their suicidal self-hatred.

There are few, if any, constitutional remedies for abuse of power by the Supremes. Congress may arbitrarily pack the court without consultation. Or, you could just call it what it is--treason--and put the creeps on trial. Or...everyone will accept it spinelessly.

Good luck, America. The time has come to take action and stop worrying about the God Damned United States Government, to borrow a phrase from the Reverend "Right".

The problem is not with "political donations" as the FEDERAL RESERVE via its private member banks insure which puppet gets to fill the Executive Branch and halls of Congress.

The crux of the problem based on my research lies in the fact that THE CORPORATION is recognized under the law as a "person". End Corporate Personhood and THE CORPORATION is no longer afforded the natural right protections enshrined within the Constitution via the Bill of Rights.

The SCotUS decision is mere distraction.

Further, your quip about "Capitalism v. Democracy" is a fundamentally flawed analogy in the fact we have not been a capitalism since 1913 when we transitioned from Republic to "Democracy". The aristocratic line of thought further buttressed by John M. Keynes' philosophy that government should provide subsidies to THE CORPORATION in order to manage the business cycle.

Please understand that throughout recorded human history two facts remain immutable:

  • Democracy, like anarchy is always a temporary transitional condition inevitably leading to the Oligarchy, hence why this nation was constructed as a Republic, an actual and fundamental difference that should be understood in its entirety.

  • In addition, no FIAT currency, of which the country uses as money, has ever lasted and instead always consumes itself via inflation.

As such, we shall not be the exception to either of the aforementioned; however, we are replicating the collapse of Rome quite succinctly.

Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

-James Madison

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | February 13, 2010 9:13 PM

In the land of "significant difference" I ask, for the sake of thought and discussion, what is the difference here?

Corporations have been contributing to political candidates, pacs, lobby grups. "think tanks" and various "public service" activities that would favor one political party over another.

They also have been doing a lot of this activity through laundered money and foreign subsidiaries of their American operations.

Now comes this ruling which should allow, for a change, that one can identify the candidate bought by Exxon, Northrup Grumman, or Kraft Foods rather than have to perform a hula dance through subsidiary companies to determine who has purchased whom.

An individuals biennial limit is $115,500.00, but a PAC or a campaign committee has no limit whatsoever. Again, what is the significant difference here?

Now that's a very interesting thought, Robert. As always, the remedy for bad speech is more speech.

Except that he does have a point. This is simply codifying something that's been in existence for a long time, just vaguely disguised.

I'm wondering about that too. Kate criticizes the fact that the Court overturned long standing precedent... fine. She also criticized them for saying that corporations are people, which is a long-standing precedent dating back to the 19th century.

People don't like this ruling, I get that. But some of the criticisms have been weird, and there is a reasonable first amendment case for what the court decided in citizen's united. the 1st amendment doesn't limit itself to "citizens" or "people," it just says congress won't pass laws that harm freedom of speech.

And saying that GE is allowed to electioneer all it wants (as it has been for decades) but its competition, Maytag, can't is illogical anyway.

George Grassby | February 14, 2010 8:56 AM

If two corporations merge, isn't that sort of like gay marriage? When one thinks 'corporation' a female image is not the usual association.



Well if Corporations are people, does this mean they have a Sex? If so is it possible for two masculine corporations to merge (marry) or does it mean that the masculine corporation can only merge with a feminine corporation? You know like Pfizer (maker of Viagra) could not merge with Eli Lilly ( maker of Cialis ) as they would both be "male" companies? But say Pfizer could merge with say Proctor & Gamble ( makers of Tampax )? I am confused how now corporations count but people do not. I guess this is some of that Right Wing thinking I keep running into that seems to defy logic.

If corporations want to drop millions into the media in support of someone, I say fine, go for it -- BUT with the caveat that any ad they create is subject to the same truth in advertising regulations that govern their products or services. Frankly, we've needed a TIA law governing political ads for a long time now; perhaps this will finally get that wheel in motion.